a noob's take on HOW TO DOMINATE $1 and $2 NO LIMIT HOLD'EM

[DiamondDog]

HOW TO DOMINATE $1 and $2 No-Limit Hold’Em
by Sam O’Connor
407pp
ISBN 978-1-4343-0289-2
Publisher: Author House 2007

I must start out by saying that it’s only a few weeks ago that I first started playing No-Limit. That was at the start of my summer holiday so I’ve had plenty of time to do some reading around the subject and this was one of the books I chose.

I’ve got mixed feelings about the book and FWIW thought I’d share them. Maybe some other noobs might find this review useful.

I’ll do my review in three parts: the good, the not so good, and general comments.

<u>The good</u>
There’s a lot of hand analysis, which I found interesting. And you’re taken through each hand a number of times, assuming that your position at the table is different each time. I found that useful for ramming home how important position is in no-limit.

There’s some discussion of different types of player, although I’m not sure there was anything in that part of the book that hasn’t been said many times before.

I thought the section on bluffing was interesting.

For live play, the section on tells would probably be useful too.

<u>The not so good</u>
I understand that the author essentially self-published the book and I can only commend him for getting his book out there, but I really do feel it suffers from the lack of a good editor.

Throughout the book are tales from the ‘old days’ of Vegas. I see the link with his basic premise that poker is a people game, and these tales are about the people who used to populate that city, and the first couple of stories were kind of interesting but after that I found they just got in the way and it felt like they were slowing down my poker-learning.

I really wasn’t sure that I needed the first sixty-or-so pages, all about Limit Hold’Em, or the repeated warning that I should read the introductory ‘discussion’, or the constant repetition, throughout the early part of the book, of a table showing the fifty best pairs of pocket cards.

My real concern with the book though is that the basic message – unless I’m missing something – is, you need to mix up your play and not just be tight-aggressive the whole time. Well, OK, that’s true, I’m sure, but I guess I was hoping for more from this book of more than 400 pages.

The other concern is the author’s advice about not sitting in games that are too loose. I’ve always been taught that those are the most profitable games of them all and against players who are going to limp in with ATo from UTG, just a basic understanding of position is going to be enough to take their money.

<u>General comments</u>
I’m sure this is a book I’ll read again, and maybe I’ll get more out of it on second reading, but at the moment I can’t help but compare it to two of the other books I read recently – No Limit Hold Em, Theory and Practice and Professional No-Limit Hold Em vol 1. Each of those is three-quarters the length of HOW TO DOMINATE but to this noob they both contain a lot more useful material.

If I’ve misrepresented anything in HOW TO DOMINATE then I apologise, and please, flame away, but I just wanted to share the thoughts of a noob in case it helps anybody else just starting out in No-Limit.

[howtodominate]

Thank you, Diamond Dog. Your comments are well conceived and well written.

To say that I “essentially” self published the book is a nice understatement and I appreciate the observance and the empathy. I wrote it, edited it, proofed it, laid out the pages and designed the cover. Naturally, some of those areas might have benefited from a helping hand.

A couple of defenses:

1) Yes, everybody knows the good player is not just tight aggressive and mixes his play. There are no new goals in poker. I’m hoping my book shows how to mix play. That’s what the book is about.

2) I did not intend to say limper games cannot be lucrative. Limper addicts, usually new players, jump on this right away. I did intend to say that the Dominator favors a game he can dominate while holding fewer premium cards and experiencing less violent bank roll swings. The Dominator wants control of the game.

My writing errors have been acknowledged many times, especially those beauties on pages 39 and 300.

On to lighter things. It’s fun to observe that the original writing would have made a book of over 1,000 pages and had to be pared down to 416 pages. Additionally, the ceiling price for poker books seems to be $30.00 and so a self published 416 page book retailing for that amount doesn’t make the author much money. (Maybe fewer of the fifty hand graphics would have helped?) In any case, money wasn’t the driving force in publishing the book.

A good friend and retired English teacher, who is also a poker player, told me, “There are two kinds of poker books being written today – boring, and boring with bad writing.” (Since he said that, several books have been written well.) But he impressed me with the need for anecdotes. Of course, he didn’t say anything about stories.

Some people say the stories get in the way; others say they especially appreciate them. But you are right in saying that the entire book is about people and the stories serve a purpose to that end.

Because of you, Diamond Dog, and others who have bestowed some reasonable critiques of the book, I now see the book could have been divided into beginners stuff, advanced stuff, and stories. But, I hope, it’s all the better for those who want to get some of all of those things.

I’m glad to see you’ll read the book again. Thank you; that’s the highest compliment.

Sam

A big “thank you” to all who have made commentary on the book. You are all priceless.

[dirty banana2007]

I really like the book as it is. It is a book i enjoy reading both for the information on playing, but also the layout and the stories.

I havent read all the way through it yet, but it is a book i will read again (and again!). Initially i found the repetition annoying, but for me it is one of those annoyances that i am willing to put up with as it is something i have to learn and remember...it also removes the need to flick back to previous chapters for the info (such as the playable hands).

I am also positive that it will improve my game a lot. I barely play NL, but i think this book is what i was looking for as it answers many of the basic questions i have about the game and gives me a strategy that i can feel comfortable about.

From this book i can then probably graduate onto the PNL series and other books on the market.

[DiamondDog]

Sam,

As someone who’s tried several times to get published – not with a book about poker I need hardly add – I find it very easy to admire someone who’s published their own work. I imagine when you go down that road there must be many times when it feels as though the actual writing was the easy bit.

If I may say so, you also do yourself huge credit by coming on to a forum hardly renowned for pulling punches and discussing your work in such an open and non-confrontational way. I thank you for that.

Your English teacher friend is wrong in my opinion. If they’ve read your book – which I’m sure they have – they should know that by now. Stylistically I never had the slightest problem with your book. I thought it was well written (although I guess I’d have to concede that like a lot of English teachers I’m no great judge in these matters).

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Adman]

I haven't read Sam's book yet so I can't comment on anything he has written. What I will say is that he comes across in all his posts as a true and total gentleman which is very rare nowadays. A lot of people- myself included- could probably learn a lot from Sam in that respect alone.

[Bet-and-win88]

I'm half through right now and there are some points I don't get. Ok, it's old school and there's nothing wrong with it. But some examples make no sense and ignore important things. The argumention goes like that: If we think we are beat, we fold (even if we have 200 Outs).
The example I hated most was the one with AT of puppyfeet on the Kc Qd Xc or something like that flop. The blind bet out pot sized and you think it's an easy fold cause he has at least paired a king or queen. I don't get how you can give up 50 % Equity just because the blind bet out. If he has any king, any queen, KQ or a set we are even money in this spot.
Of course you have just a draw and it's tough to call another pot sized bet on the turn. But what about raising? He might lay down a weak king or queen but no set or kings up. Even against the three sets and kings up we have about 37 % Equity.
Ok, I have no idea about the stacks which is another flaw in this book. I don't get why you ignore that important factor.

Don't get me wrong, I like the book, I like some elements of the described style but there are some things I don't understand.
Often, the math is way off which is pretty much disturbing and delusive for novice players without a good math understanding.
No matter what you did a great job and the book is definitely worth a read. I don't know if I'll read it again. I skipped to page 223 because I was told that the best part of the book starts here.
By the way, I like the language although I'm not a native speaker.

[howtodominate]

Thank you, Bet-and-win88

You sound like you’re making the transition from limit to no limit. I assume this from the mixing of “pot equity” theories with that of the best hand.

It’s more accurate in no limit to say that the whole pot belongs to the player with the best hand at the moment. And then we ask ourselves, “Is it financially viable to try to change that?” My examples also assume the bettor is a good player, meaning he bets the size of the pot to prevent your obvious draw. If you call you still only have a so called “50% pot equity”. Those bets and calls don’t give you the pot odds to match much of any kind of draw and it can cause stack anxiety in looking at another and greater pot sized bet. (These grow exponentially.) Even with 16 outs, you still only have about a one third chance, with one card, of coming from behind and making your hand. It doesn’t compute.

You are right. Raising in this situation is a possibility, but the Discussion in question is about position. Raising, by playing your player, is in Discussions in another part of the book.

Stack size is also discussed in other parts of the book.

Thank you for the interest and for the compliments. Good luck and good skill, and enjoy the rest of the book.

Sam

[Bet-and-win88]

Sorry Sam but I only played limit for about two weeks at 0,1/0,2.
First of all the AT of clubs-example:
If you aren't a fan of "just having 50 % pot equity" than we can take another approach:
You have 12 outs to the nuts. You also have an overcard with the ace. Of course you have to discount and it should be right to call it 1 and a half out. Overall you should have 13,5 outs and you are about a 2,5:1 dog.
With his pot sized bet you get exactly 2:1 pot odds. A call isn't a big mistake here even if you ignore the implied odds. Let's say the pot is $ 10, he bets 10, you hit your nutflush on the turn and he makes another pot sized bet of 30, you raise and he folds. You just risk 10 to win 40 and are getting way more than 2,5:1. And I think this should be the least money you can get from an aggressive oppenent sitting there with top pair, or even two pair.
If you call and a blank comes on the turn, things change a lil bit. The odds are approximately the same but you just have one betting round left. So if you put Murphy on the turn a fold should be ok.
I know you know this stuff but I think even without the option of raising, a call still favors a fold because if you just have pretty marginal implied odds the expected value is positive.

[ QUOTE ]
These grow exponentially

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but this isn't an argument. The only thing that counts should be pot odds (if we play too deep to consider the stacks or like you without stacks) and not which amount he bets. The problem on the turn is not that the pot sized bet is "larger" than the bet on the flop but there's only one betting-round and not as much money to bet left.

I saw that you discuss stack sizes later in the book but I think you should at least mention the stacks in the examples because it changes things dramatically!

Again, I like your book and will finish in within the next days but some decisions are too passive -for my taste (Yeah, I'm a new kid on the block...).
Also I think you ignore the importance of stack sizes in the early examples.

Best,
BaW

[howtodominate]

I don't want to argue either. But if you're assuming 12 outs and the money is 2:1, you're better off throwing the hand away after the flop; no need to get involved and bleed your stack. In your example, you're taking chances when you have so little invested.

There'll be another hand soon with which you won't risk calling down your stack, a hand with which you'll be able to take charge. Never mind the little skirmish before the flop and the chase after the flop; the trick is to win the war.

In any case, get what you can from the book and play the way you like.

Good luck.

Sam

[howtodominate]

The above was discussed by you and me without saying anything about the nature of the opponent and his attitude toward you. If you have an opponent you can play with and bluff, go get him!

Now you're playing the game there is a lot of discussion concerning those situations later in the book.

Sam